Do new DVD formats really matter?

[m1ckran]

There's been much discussion recently about the two opposing successors to DVD. Most of the entertainment industry's attention appears to be dedicated to inventing many different ways to prevent consumers using the new technology. It is assumed that consumers will buy anything new.

I remember when the CD was declared obsolete by the introduction of SACD and DVD-A. Competing manufacturers were fanatically soliciting support within the industry and signing format-exclusive agreements. They assumed that consumers would rush out in droves to replace their CD players. See a parallel?

Consumers, however, were not so blindly stupid. They realised that the new CD formats offered improved fidelity but baulked at paying premium prices and the requirement to buy a different player for each format, especially when standard CD reproduction on the new players was demonstrably poorer than previous products.

By the time the industry realised what was happening, and allowed the production of "universal" players, the general public had, I think, lost interest in the new formats and was staunchly still buying standard CD's. Other manufacturers stepped in to fill the market gap for quality CD players left by the industry leaders.

Personally, I expect DVD to continue just as CD has done because CD and DVD are so ubiquitous that few manufacturers would want to abandon the market. I wonder if Sony will lose ther DVD player market as they did their CD player market. I also expect the two opposing formats will prove to be nothing more than a curiosity for the majority of consumers and will become a minority product in much the same way as SACD.

Considering past performance with CD, and the unenviable reputation the industry has created for itself, does anyone seriously expect DVD to die?

[Zarxrax]

I completely agree. I highly doubt that either HD-DVD format will really take off. Hardly anyone even has HDTV, so there is no reason for them to want to upgrade. I can see it becoming a storage solution for PCs, but I really don't think we will see DVD replaced by either of the new formats.

[Shinigami-Sama]

I happen to have a 1080i toshiba tv
but now theres so little content worth watching that I havnt turned it on in about 4 months, so I'll also agree with this one, we'll still be seeing dvds as the main for years, look at VHS they *JUST* stoped making those a few months ago, VHS are what 30years old?

[m1ckran]

The only real problem I have with DVD is that the disc is so fragile. That's why I am a fan of Doom9!

I also agree about content - very disappointing since the big studios moved into litigation to make their money.

And now for the really serious stuff...

@Shinigami-Sama
Don't you realise that England is the Land of Beer?

[Shinigami-Sama]

The only real problem I have with DVD is that the disc is so fragile. That's why I am a fan of Doom9!

I also agree about content - very disappointing since the big studios moved into litigation to make their money.

And now for the really serious stuff...

@Shinigami-Sama
Don't you realise that England is the Land of Beer?
I've never broken a dvd and I've thrown them 1/2 across the room onto a stack of other dvds <.<

and isn't the UK the land of the newspaper wraped fish and chips an boiled bread? :D

and Canada = beer and hockey :D

[m1ckran]

Wierd things, DVD's. I try to handle mine with care but I found an almost invisible nick on disc2 of LOTR 2 SEE that made it unplayable. So backups rule for me! And I can also cut out those irritating copyright messages and extras that I hate to watch because I find my enjoyment is spoiled if I know "how they did it".

I once threw a Townsend Rock with a Linn arm and MC cartridge (£3,000 worth of sky-hi-fi) turntable across the room in temper. It didn't survive! Since then I avoid chucking my stuff about and my temper has improved.

England is now a PC nanny-state. We're not allowed to eat fish and chips out of newspaper in case we go mad from the lead in the newsprint. Personally, I think reading that stuff is more risky.

Never heard of boiled bread. What do you do with it?

I used to play hockey at school but I got fed up with having my leg pulled because it's considered a girl's game in England. Hockey sticks do, however, make good clubs with which to respond to sexist insults!

We now have unlimited licensing hours so pubs and clubs can serve drinks 24/7 if they want to. There are very few police patrol cars nowadays because it's more cost effective to replace them with speed-cameras. Since drunks often hug the centre-line at 25mph, the cameras ignore them and snap the frustrated motorists who overtake them.

Going now. Going to pour myself a glass of Bass.

[kis2005]

I have been thinking the same thing...DVDs are just fine and i have the players with every TV now, so why would I think of upgrading and spending $100 of dollars? The industry is out of touch with their consumers. A lot of people still play both VHS and DVD and still by the combo units, which are under $80, and they can play CDs and MP3s. For me I like my CDs and my DVDs.

[spuddog]

Yeh, what they said, But seriously I have always believed that Blu-ray and HD-tv were nothing more than shill to entice people into accepting a new form of DRM.

[Doobie]

I remember when the CD was declared obsolete by the introduction of SACD and DVD-A.

SACD and DVD-A were never The Standard and they don't sound any better than CDs (no need to dispute that). HDTV is The Standard and everyone can see a clear improvement over STD. The people behind the new video formats could hardly fail if they tried.

Consumers, however, were not so blindly stupid.

Are you running for office?

[Lil' Jer]

HDTV is The Standard and everyone can see a clear improvement over STD.

That may be true, but with people who own HDTVs being in a very small minority not many people are going to jump onto a format their TVs can't take advantage of.

The people behind the new video formats could hardly fail if they tried.

I see these formats going the way of LaserDisc. Unless HDTVs penetrate the market more these formats aren't going to be anything but a niche market.

[mudda_t]

I was just explaining these new formats to a couple last night and they couldn't understand why there were 2 new formats. I gave them the dvd+/- as example, about diff companies backing diff formats.
.
I explained how the quality was to get a lot better, they thought DVD was already good enough and would'nt spend more money to improve something that was already good. Plus they didn't wanna have to buy their entire library all over again.
.
I also told them that some people believed (including myself) that it was just another way for the companies to double, triple, & quadruple dip the consumer to death. With most DVD's having a reported life span of 100+ years how else are the movie companies going to get the consumer to buy the same thing again and again!
.
They thought that made much more sense.

[foxyshadis]

So there's going to be a long while for the technology to be widely accepted and eventually necessary. That's nothing new. The formats will show up, a few people who want it really bad will start buying, and 2-3 years later it'll hit some kind of critical mass where people will start wondering how they lived their lives without it, and a few years after that the old formats will start fading away.

Look at AVC, it took about 2 years from the final draft for it to move from hobbyist gadget to commercial tools and having some hardware that could play it. DVD took years to get to the point where almost nobody thinks VHS or laserdisc is "just good enough" anymore.

If people still think DVD is just fine in 2-3 years, then the death knell is rung and some other technology is going to have to come along.

(Not that "rerererereleases" are anything new, and only so many people are ever going to re-buy old movies on the new format.)

[DrScotsman]

I think the formats will come in sooner than you think. Of course that 2% of the US population who have an HDTV really won't do anything, but think about this: the new formats can simply hold a hell of a lot of standard definition content, and that's before you even start to consider codecs other than MPEG2. Companies will start to sell box sets with less discs for cheaper prices, but big enough so that they're still making crazy profits. Hell I'll bet that the Lord of the Rings trilogy will be re-released, simply because they know people will prefer it to what, 12 discs?

[Doom9]

SDTV is going to be switched off by 2008 in the US.. by that time, the least you'll need is a set top box which of course is able to handle HDTV. And while you're at the shop, joe average will see the difference between what he'll get with his new HDTV box on his current crappy tube TV and a new flatscreen HDTV. If you look at the PC screen market, we have 80% flatscreens already, and TVs are also moving towards that direction.. keeping in mind that flatscreen TVs are often HDTV compatible, the majority of new TVs sold is actually at least 720p capable. As time passes, the existing userbase will migrate to HDTV one way or another. Since the new formats only make sense if you have HD equipment, the adoption will obviously be much slower than it was for DVD (where you essentially just could swap our your CD player for a DVD player and didn't have to touch your TV to see the difference), but the day where joe average has his new HDTV capable TV and his settop box (because analogue TV is no more), he'll suddenly start to wonder why TV looks so much better than DVDs.. and by that time, considering the introduction price of $500, swapping out the current DVD player for a HD capable one will become a very real option.
Mind you, the adoption of any HD format will be closely correlated to the adoption of HDTV sets itself.. which means it'll be a slow and drawn out process. I think a reason why the industry didn't get their act together and came up with a unified format has something to do with that.. the majority will stick to DVD for a while to come so why not try to box your own format through and reap more licensing fees than if you come up with a common format?

[m1ckran]

Quote:
Consumers, however, were not so blindly stupid.

Are you running for office?
Today 02:32

I think I'm too honest to run for office. If I were to hold office, how long would it be before I become as bad as the rest? Human nature I suppose. I don't want it.

[mg262]

Can existing HDTVs play HD-DVDs/Blu-Rays? I thought there was a decryption issue (HDMI), but I haven't really been following...

[m1ckran]

SACD and DVD-A were never The Standard and they don't sound any better than CDs (no need to dispute that).

I disagree. I've heard SACD sound marvelous. I've also heard standard CD sound marvelous on high-end hi-fi kit. I suspect that the bluechip makers have deliberatedly worsened the sound quality of their standard CD players to encourage people to buy their new format. On the other hand, specialist manufacturers can make standard CD players that sound far better than the bluechip systems.

It's just that for most people, myself included, the improvement is not worth the cost and effort. Similarly, I think, most people will ignore enhanced DVD until they have no choice.

Most people I know treat TV, CD and DVD in a similar way to household appliances. They would not throw out a working traditional vacuum cleaner in favour of the latest cyclone technology (I know two people who still use heavy Hoover Seniors). They wait until it breaks then look around for alternatives. People are simply too busy working, raising children and living their lives to bother too much about a DVD. DVD is popular because it's convenient and cheap.

If DRM-inspired restrictions make DVD less convenient and more expensive, I think the industry will struggle. I hope standard DVD lasts for many years because I don't want to dump my DVD collection. I doubt whether HD-DVD can "improve" the quality of my existing DVD's and I'm suspicious of any remastering claims because remastered CD's usually sound terrible when compared with the originals. Why should DVD be any different?

I'd like to thank everyone who's contributed so far. It's been interesting. I suppose it's all speculation but there is also another facet to the debate.

In local markets, up and down the country, police arrest traders of counterfeit goods including DVD's. These people are fined heavily or imprisoned. At the same time, we see very lenient sentences for all sorts of violent crime. I detect a growing sympathy for DVD pirates and a feeling that they are Robin Hood types battling an unjust system.

If DRM-inspired restrictions make DVD inconvenient to use, I can see that the pirates will become more popular because they will be the only ones capable of bypassing protection systems.

What an odd world we live in!

[Soulhunter]

Can existing HDTVs play HD-DVDs/Blu-Rays? I thought there was a decryption issue (HDMI), but I haven't really been following...
Yup, you will need a HDTV with HDMI + HDCP to watch HD-DVDs/Blu-Rays afaik!

Anyway, I wish they would use HVD (http://www.hvd-alliance.org/) instead of HD-DVD/Blu-Ray...

More expensive, but 200-1000GB capacity ~.~


Bye

[Doom9]

Can existing HDTVs play HD-DVDs/Blu-Rays? Yes.. at which resolution remains to be seen.. and let's not forget, as pointed out, HDTV's are not that common yet.. but if you buy one today, most are HDCP compatible.

It's just that for most people, myself included, the improvement is not worth the cost and effort. At this point, that's certainly true. But let's not forget that even though DVD was adopted speedily, it took years upon years.. and even today there are people buying pre-recorded VHS tapes. In due time, instead of buying a regular DVD player, you'll pick up a HD capable one because it costs the same (and of course plays existing CDs and DVDs).. and as far as the price of content goes.. there's no telling right now what it'll cost. The premium will certainly go down.. ideally if they want to move forward they'll give the HD discs away for the same price as DVDs.. so if the player doesn't cost more and the content doesn't cost more, but looks much better on your HDTV (that you will have in 201x), I doubt many people will go for the DVD anymore.
And as far as convenience goes.. let's not forget that we who know how to back up a DVD are a very small minority.. for most people.. they need a player with a DVD logo to play a DVD. And of course, you don't need to dump your DVD collection. We already know HD DVD players can handle DVD and CDs.. the second generation of Blu-ray players will be compatible with all formats as well.. some players and recorders have already been announced. Just as your software on CDs and audio CDs did not become useless when you upgraded from a CD-ROM to a DVD-ROM, the next step will not leave you in the dark either. I'm even guessing that the HD formats will make a quicker adoption in the PC market because the 4.7 GB on current DVD-Rs just isn't enough.
SACD and DVD-A are quite something different. To take full advantage, you need a really high end stereo.. who has a 5.1+ equipment in their bedroom, office, car, etc. For movies, you have one setup in one room and that's it. Movie watching is also more constrained in terms of where you can do it as compared to audio. Players did cost a lot more from the getgo, content was always a problem. Compared to the DVD launch, prices of HD DVD players will be low from the very start. Having recordable media from the getgo for PCs will also drive adoption in the PC world. So I think as HDTV will slowly grow over the next decade, so will the HD formats slowly replace DVD in that decade.

[m1ckran]

@Doom9 :goodpost:

Good points. Pardon my ignorance but are you the Doom9 of Doom9.net fame? If so, thanks for my favourite website.

[Zarxrax]

SDTV is going to be switched off by 2008 in the US.. by that time, the least you'll need is a set top box which of course is able to handle HDTV.

SDTV will simply stop being broadcast over the public airwaves. The VAST majority of people in the US at least, get their tv through cable or satellite. I don't even know a single person who doesnt have one or the other. The people who don't get cable or satellite are likely poorer people who don't have the income to spend on it, and so they wouldn't be prime candidates to adopt some new hi definition dvd format.

So when these new formats come out, barely anyone will have an HDTV still. The majority of TVs sold in stores today still aren't HD compatible!

And can most people even really tell any difference between HD and SD? I mean, maybe if you have a HUGE screen tv, the SD image can be a little blurry. But as for my SD tv, the image looks perfectly fine to me. Everything is sharp and crisp, and I can see all the details that I want. I imagine 95% of consumers out there feel the same.

[Tuesday]

agreed, what kind of size tv will you need before a differance is actually visible? I have 14" in my bedroom and a 24" in the living room - both crt's and i can't really see how the image could look much cripser...

[Doom9]

I have a 23" PC screen (1920x1080).. and I can spot the difference a mile away. A lot of people cannot really put the finger on the quality difference between VHS and DVD either ;) I'll be even more visible once the 30" Dell gets here (finally, I'll catch up with the CRT in the living room diagonal wise).
And as I said.. the push will come when people have HDTV and start wo wonder thy their TV broadcasts look better than their DVDs.. that's a good while off for most people.. we're talking of a whole decade that I think the change will take at least. I dare claim that by 2010, the majority of all new TVs sold are HD capable, and that HD formats have largely replaced DVD burners in PCs.

The VAST majority of people in the US at least, get their tv through cable or satellite.You don't think that cable and satellite providers will have to make the same offer to stay competitive? If you get a better picture free of charge versus a bad picture for a monthly fee.. people start to wonder.

[Zarxrax]

You don't think that cable and satellite providers will have to make the same offer to stay competitive? If you get a better picture free of charge versus a bad picture for a monthly fee.. people start to wonder.
Well, the cable and satellite companies do offer HD... but only on a limited number of channels... usually the broadcast channels, and some premium channels. You also have to pay extra to get the channels in HD. The majority of channels are still SD, with no option for HD.

Maybe getting slightly off-topic here, but does anyone else think this whole push from analog to digital is actually HURTING tv? I go over to my friends houses who have digital cable, and all I can think about is how crappy the picture looks. I see blocking all over the place. Occasionally the set will apparently miss a frame or something, and the image will be screwed up for a bit. My analogue cable might have a bit of noise and such, but it still appears much better to me than the digital stuff. In the past couple of years though, even my analog cable tv has been getting infiltrated by this digital crap. I notice blocking on some stations, or occasionally the picture will freeze up for a bit. I can hardly even watch the history channel anymore because it looks like that encoded it in mpeg2 at around 1mbps.

I for one, certainly don't like where television is headed.

[mg262]

It's definitely a problem here in the UK, at least for the free DVB-T channels -- typical bit rates seem to be 2500 to 3000. But what's particularly annoying is that some channels are broadcast twice -- with programs delayed by an hour on the '+1' channel.

[mpucoder]

There certainly is a difference when the terrestrial signal is degraded. On analog systems the picture may show some noise spikes or snow, with digital the whole damn thing disappears. I have 2 HDTV receivers and live 1.7 miles from the mountain peak that has 2 stations on it, both DT channels come in crappy (maybe the angle is too severe, though, and going over my head), but the TV channels (analog) are superb.
Stations 10 to 30 miles away come in better.

[Lil' Jer]

SDTV is going to be switched off by 2008 in the US.. by that time, the least you'll need is a set top box which of course is able to handle HDTV.

Many people will probably just buy a converter to watch it on their normal TV since they are far cheaper and Congress has already said they will help subsidize the purhcase of them. For the average consumer what do you think they are going to buy? A converter box that costs a hundred bucks or so or a 2000+ dollar new TV? I certainly don't see it being the latter in the vast majority of cases especially for all those people who have already bought a 3000-5000 dollar HDTV just a year or two ago and are now told that they need a brand new TV if they want to take advantage of the full HD resolution since their TV didn't have HDCP in it. I say, no thanks. I hope both formats die and something that isn't just DIVX2 comes along.

[random asshat]

In a nutshell: I'm skipping this upgrade.

Although still far from 30, I've seen enough data storage formats.
I've been transfering my data to the `latest and greatest` media
since the days of floppies, the big ones 5 1/4.

Every generation of upgrade has brought me some functional
improvement, and some data loss. With DVD-DL, I'm done for awhile.
There comes a point when the benefit seems marginal to me, and
the costs involved with transferring what I already have, just isn't
worth it.

Any content produced from this day in 2006 forward has the potential
to benefit from HD, but will going back and re-mastering Casablanca
from it's source really see any improvement in HD? .. I tend to doubt it.
So HD appears to be an investment in strictly post-2006 content.
I'm not saying that all the great movies have already been made,
but I guess I'm just not enough of a visionary to forsee the `killer app`
that would require the capacities. I'm even a little hesitant with DVDR-DL,
great for movies, but If my multiple re-runs of upgrading storage media
have taught me anything, It's that sometimes you just don't want that
much data in one place.

Lest this become a "640K of RAM" type comment that comes back
to bite me in the ass, Perhaps there will be something that will draw
me back for upgrades, but I'm going to skip this round. It seems like
a transitional upgrade, before the real `Next Big Thing`.
Currently DVD is "good enough" for me and is something I have
reasonable expectation that the content I already have
can't be locked out of.

\ Not going to be re-buying "Star Wars IV, REMASTERED IN HD!
\ "Now with more original scenes replaced with walkie-talkies!"
\\ Likes the Guiness, Bass is good though.

[m1ckran]

I don't think digital sound or video is better than analogue. Digital is merely a different technology used to produce the end result. Terrestrial digital TV can be unwatchable due to interference whereas switching to the same station's analogue broadcast produces an imperfect but watchable picture.

It's true that there could never be an practical analogue equivalent of a computer or DVD because analogue technology requires too much time and space. But that just indicates how much programme material is actually lost by digital methods. Digital, by its nature, is a lossy format and any distortions produce even more losses resulting in corrective circuitry creating blocking for video and dropouts for audio. Analogue distortions are additive so a scratched LP adds a click to the original programme, but the original programme remains intact.

I've heard CD reissues of sixties music and wondered how I could have listened to that rubbish when I was younger. Playing the original single or LP soon restored my faith. Fabulous music, played by enthusiastic musicians recorded with simple microphone techniques in analogue studios. The force, vigour and soul of the original pressings were totally absent from the digital reissues. Modern recording methods are improving but the problem is finding the talent.

It's clear that digital is the future whatever opinion you hold but "digital" equates much closer with "convenience" than "perfection". Nature and evolution have managed with analogue for thousands of years. My dog doesn't need digital eyes and ears to receive more information than I can.

The best hi fi system I've ever heard was a turntable playing through valve amplification into electrostatic speakers. Bliss. I think I'll never hear its like again but, these days, I'll settle for the convenience of CD and DVD.

The main benefit of higher density DVD's is, for me, the ability to backup my DVD9 discs without compression. That's assuming that the shareware authors are not prevented from producing the software.

[m1ckran]

\ Not going to be re-buying "Star Wars IV, REMASTERED IN HD!
\ "Now with more original scenes replaced with walkie-talkies!"
\\ Likes the Guiness, Bass is good though.

Bass used to be better than nowadays but I've been told that Coors now own the brewery and they've "rationalised" the recipe.

There's still a good number of small brewers producing the likes of Speckled Hen, Hobgoblin, Old Peculiar, Piddle-in-the-Hole, Double Drop and many more. If you like Irish beers, Killkenny is the cream.

[Inventive Software]

My Grandad recently purchased a HDTV. He plans to get a Sky+ HD box mid-2006. I watched about 5 minutes of a digital signal through it, and was appalled at how bad the quality was. The analogue was worse.

I know that the government plans to switch off all analogue signals by 2008. It remains to be seen whether the increased bandwidth from the absence of analogue will be enough for HD signals. Though where I am, it won't make the slightest difference. I live about 40 miles from the nearest transmitter, and occasionally I get ghosting from Dutch stations because we're so near to their obviously more powerful transmitters.

If the local government is paying any attention: "BUILD ONE IN NORWICH!!!"

[Doom9]

I certainly don't see it being the latter in the vast majority of cases especially for all those people who have already bought a 3000-5000 dollar HDTV just a year or two ago and are now told that they need a brand new TV if they want to take advantage of the full HD resolution since their TV didn't have HDCP in it.Actually, there are those nifty little boxes that have a HDCP compatible chip and an unprotected DVI output ;) perhaps you'll have to directly order them from Russia or China after a while when the MPAA's law (twisting) machine comes down hard on the manufacturers, but it's all but impossible to make your current equipment copy protection compatible with a little effort.

[Doom9]

Many people will probably just buy a converter to watch it on their normal TV since they are far cheaper and Congress has already said they will help subsidize the purhcase of them.Initially, definitely. But while in the store, the sales clerk will woe them with HDTV sets, and eventually everybody falls for a flatscreen. Maybe not by 2008, but within a decade we'll see considerable parts of the current TV landscape exchanged (at least in high tech countries). Even now, CRT displays are being exchanged for LCD ones not because the CRT is broken or not good enough, but simply because of space and "the looks". Since the prices of your average PC LCD has come down significantly over the past few years, upgrading doesn't really hurt that much anymore, and you can currently see the same price decline in the TV area (though it's just at the beginning).
I like to browse the store of one of the country's largest CE outlet (which happens to be just 5 car minutes away from where I live and it's on my way to work even when I take the car), to see where the market is going. I saw the rise of DVD, how they changed their displays and prerecorded media offer over the years, and now I'm beginning to see the same for TVs. It will take years until we're in a situation like we are with DVDs today, but the process has already begun and there's no stopping it. I think by 2010, every flatscreen TV sold will be HD capable.. whether people will make use of it (there's an LCD TV in my homeoffice.. it can handle 720p (no HDCP though), but the only high res signal is the PC that is connected to it) is another question but the hardware will be there. This move isn't fueled by the desire to be HD compatible, in Europe most people don't even know what HD is since there's no content, but this is about replacing old and clunky CRT displays by small and sexy looking flatscreens.. the HD compatibility is just an (unwanted?) side effect.
I doubt that joe average would buy a new TV specifically for HD content.. it's too much of an investment, but I think he'll get HD capabilities with his settop box, when he replaces his CRT, and suddenly he's equipped for HD without even having thought about it. And if you have all the hardware, why not use it then?

[Mug Funky]

the waste sort of annoys me. the amount of perfectly good equipment that ends up in landfill just because someone wanted a bigger/flatter/etc monitor/TV/etc.

there's places in the world that could benefit even from a 14 incher, but we just ditch the stuff and let the goodies within leach into the soil...

for the record, i got a CRT when i got my new machine. reason? cheaper, better colour/luma reproduction, able to display more than 1 resolution without artefacts. it was second hand, too. only cost (AUD) $150 for a 19" trinitron that goes all the way up to 2048x1536, and has no problems whatever. plus the space isn't wasted - it makes a very good shelf, and provides a home for many DVDs and some of the cuter happy-meal toys.

of course, getting the thing from the swap meet to the car was another story... but if you've got the space and don't mind a hernia or two, CRT is definitely the better choice IMHO.

[m1ckran]

Wow! Just look what I've stirred up! Good thread providing lots of food for thought.

I think there's no doubt that technological advances offer the potential for a "better" end-result, and marketing departments will be pushing this to sell the equipment.

But I suspect that, for a corporation, the attraction is that technological advances provide greater manufacturing headroom and production tolerances. This means that it can actually be cheaper to produce goods to an equal or slightly better standard than before. Or, dare I say it, produce inferior stuff that people think is better? Also, with fewer components and a far lower unit weight, transport, storage and distribution costs are far less than previously. Additionally, because the product can be built cheaply by Chinese children, the potential for corporate profit must be staggering.

It's also true that most people couldn't give a sod about it. I think that dvd, for example, has not taken-off because a few people buy high-tech, flagship players costing over £1000. It's because people are buying from supermarkets at around £20 when cheap VHS machines still cost around £50. The value of the pound is not important - the proportional costs are.

We already know what big corporations think of their customers. They're not introducing new kit because they think it's good for us. They are hardly philanthropists - they're want to make money. That is why we will all, in time, be using whatever the corporations want us to use.

The question is: will we be able to use it in the way we want to use it, or will we be restricted by punitive measures enforced by law?

[Soulhunter]

Yes.. at which resolution remains to be seen.. and let's not forget, as pointed out, HDTV's are not that common yet...
Ah yeah, now you say it, I remember this Windows-Vista paper! Somewhere they wrote that "premium content" (which means HD-DVD/BluRay etc.) gets limited to D1 resolution for non-HDCP ouputs... >.<


In the past couple of years though, even my analog cable tv has been getting infiltrated by this digital crap. I notice blocking on some stations, or occasionally the picture will freeze up for a bit...
Alas, and lets not forget the audio! Whenever theres a error in the audiostream there is this super-loud "squeeek" sound which makes me fear Ill get a tinnitus from it, and I think its also not very healthy for the speakers, heh!?


for the record, i got a CRT when i got my new machine. reason? cheaper, better colour/luma reproduction, able to display more than 1 resolution without artefacts...
Yup, lots of ppl I know just got a LCD for their PC coz they think its better (coz newer) than a CRT. But imo even LCDs for 500€ are worse than a quality CRT for... lets say 250€. Tho a 23" 1080p display like Doom9 has looks very seductive to me... ;)


Bye

[Doom9]

Ah yeah, now you say it, I remember this Windows-Vista paper! Somewhere they wrote that "premium content" (which means HD-DVD/BluRay etc.) gets limited to D1 resolution for non-HDCP ouputs... >.<I just browsed through an article in the latest c't about HD drives.. turns out at this point there is NO!! hardware that will support this "protected video path" at all... giving hope that they have to give up on that... you can't launch a product where each potential customer not only has to pay the already high introductory price, but on top of that replace his perfectly suitable hardware along with it. They might be able to pull that stunt for TVs as they can argue that most people don't have HDTVs anyway and that those that get screwed over are just early adopters, but when it comes to PCs, there are millions upon millions of devices out there perfectly capable of handling Blu-ray or HD DVD content.. and whose displays have resolutions where you'll notice the downscaling. To make matters more interesting.. nobody has heard of HDCP for dual link DVI (which my new screen will have). The whole copy protection thing really hasn't be properly thought through yet. And the fact that the hardware would be ready but everybody is waiting for AACS to be completed is a further indication of that.. what more proof do you need that copy protection is hurtful to technology than that?
They'd be much better off with watermarking and no copy protection.. if you upload your movies and they can be traced back to you, suddenly it becomes a lot more risky.. and if it works for Screeners, why not use it for a larger scale. It's an approach that also works very well on the road.. you can speed and not care abaout the rules governing traffic, but if they see your number, they got you.. that keeps most people honest.

[bond]

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6300812.html

Supporters of Image Constraint argue that few consumers will be able to tell the difference between down-converted analog and high-def."lets get people to buy hddvd sets, but lets downconvert the image because people cant see the difference between hddvd and normal dvds anyways" :D

[Doom9]

good one ;)

[Soulhunter]

lol! :D

[arch_angel16]

I can think of a dozen reasons why DTV won't catch on, and only one explaining why it will: the US Congress. What we're seeing now from Congress and the industry is the extreme side of the whole "art as a business" balance. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the studios started engineering the discs to fail after 5 years, forcing you to re-buy. They're already trying to cover their asses swith the "customary historic use" legislation.

Aside from the few anime & hbo programs I download & watch (or rent, if available) I don't bother with much consumer entertainment. Personally, I find the entire economy of audio/video entertainment insulting. We pay a fee to consume programming under restricted format and time conditions, and even then, we're bombarded with endless advertising, and are expected to pay for the consumption of the product in a few ways: cable subscription, TiVo subscription, rentals, several rounds of purchases of various 'enhanced' versions of the content, even more rounds of purchases of the content in different formats (ipod, psp, etc).

The crass consumerism and profit mongering I've described doesn't appeal to me at all. Give me independant studios or productions with cheap online distribution, where I am rewarding the efforts of the team who created the content only, and not a thousand other people. Some online gaming (most notably, Valve's STEAM) distribution systems match this ideal. I'm sure it's possible for other media to follow.

I have abolutely no qualms about putting Hollywood out of business. Not through piracy, but simple lost sales. This herd mentality of mindless consumers sickens me. There are many, many other forms of entertainment to be enjoyed, so go out and vote with your wallets.

[Doom9]

Some online gaming (most notably, Valve's STEAM) distribution systems match this ideal. I'm sure it's possible for other media to follow.Umm.. that's the system where you can't play unless you're online and where they track your gaming habits.. not sure that's a good example. In fact, I find steam the most intrusive way to play games ever. I have no problem with entering a serial upon installation, but it starts with CD checks where I as a honest customer feel screwed over (those using a warez release instead don't need the CD/DVD in their drives when they play games). I also find the update process rather annoying.. it takes ages even though my connection is otherwise idle... why can't I download patch.exe, run it and be done with it?

[arch_angel16]

I mentioned Steam as a *distribution* system. You're not paying a publisher, or a storefront, you're just paying Valve for making it and giving it to you.

Besides, you don't need to be online to play. And CD checks don't even happen, given that you don't have CDs if you buy it online.

[Doom9]

well.. I happen to have bought the game on a physical medium.. And it's still the most intrusive gaming system whether you buy online or have the DVD.

[Inventive Software]

Agree. I wish they'd develop a system that allows their fine products to be played on a system without the internet.

I regularly get PC Format. There was a survey a while ago that said: "About 1 in 3 of you gamers have the little Steam icon in your Systray."

For getting your game noticed, Steam does the trick. Surely that's what the developers want?

[unmei]

They'd be much better off with watermarking and no copy protection.. if you upload your movies and they can be traced back to you, suddenly it becomes a lot more risky.. and if it works for Screeners, why not use it for a larger scale.
That's a very interesting idea - much better than this tendency "to take the computer away from the user" they announced. But unfortunately it would require you to identify when you buy the disc, and as long as you can pay cash that is very unlikely to happen.

[Zero1]

Considering past performance with CD, and the unenviable reputation the industry has created for itself, does anyone seriously expect DVD to die?
I hope so, because I desire higher quality than DVD, that is if these new formats can promise such a thing aside from higher resolution. I remember back when DVDs were starting to take off, all the sales crap people would give you, "Video that looks as good as a CD sounds!" No it doesn't, stop lying. It's not even close. My CDs don't suffer ringing, warbling or flanging, yet I see DVDs with blocking, banding and Gibbs effect. You just can't compare lossless and lossy compression of different types of data so carelessly!</rant>


@Shinigami-Sama
Don't you realise that England is the Land of Beer?
Let's not forget the football yobs (or soccer for some of you) and pie and chips :p


and isn't the UK the land of the newspaper wraped fish and chips an boiled bread?
Boiled bread sounds soggy and disgusting. Fish and chips is quite correct though :)


Yeh, what they said, But seriously I have always believed that Blu-ray and HD-tv were nothing more than shill to entice people into accepting a new form of DRM.
Sounds about right. It didn't used to bother me much, because there is always some kind soul that has a workaround for it (think about the awesome people that figured DVD decryping and bought us out favorite programs), but now it feels like such an invasion of privacy.


I explained how the quality was to get a lot better, they thought DVD was already good enough and would'nt spend more money to improve something that was already good. Plus they didn't wanna have to buy their entire library all over again.
I can appreciate that, but again DVDs are definately not good enough for me. Mainstream movies might get good releases, but some of the anime DVDs released in America are God damn awful. It infuriates me how they re-encode stuff rather than just muxing the dubtrack to the original Japanese encode (in most cases there would be enough space to do that). HD-DVD is a good chance that I will get better quality releases of the DVDs I already own, I'm guessing they will have to remaster it to make use of the extra resolution, but on the other hand with how shabby some DVDs are, I wouldn't be surprised in the least bit if they just upscale the SD encodes.


And can most people even really tell any difference between HD and SD? I mean, maybe if you have a HUGE screen tv, the SD image can be a little blurry. But as for my SD tv, the image looks perfectly fine to me. Everything is sharp and crisp, and I can see all the details that I want. I imagine 95% of consumers out there feel the same.
I don't even think you need a huge TV to be able to tell the difference. Think of the difference between viewing your PC on your monitor, and a similar sized TV screen via SVHS out. Ok, so I know it's a little bit apples and pears, but the difference is huge. I can tell the difference, I'm using a 21" flatscreen CRT (think trinitron, but it's actually a shadow mask) and I have a 14" 4:3, and 28" 16:9 TV. It outclasses both of these by miles, and it's not even being used at a very high resolution (1280x960 for now).


Maybe getting slightly off-topic here, but does anyone else think this whole push from analog to digital is actually HURTING tv? I go over to my friends houses who have digital cable, and all I can think about is how crappy the picture looks. I see blocking all over the place. Occasionally the set will apparently miss a frame or something, and the image will be screwed up for a bit.
Most definately, the image quality of the DVB here (in the UK) is shocking. They use something like 3,000kbps MPEG-2 (CBR if I'm not mistaken...). They recently had a Lord of the Rings movie on one of the main channels, I've never seen such a blockfest in my life, ever. Also like you, it suffers drop outs, which might be caused by a slight dip in reception strength but it will be enough to destroy the stream. Most annoying when you are DVB dumping because then you have to go and trim() parts to match the audio up and you end up with a lot of complete drop outs, as opposed to analogue where you can filter out noise if it's minor. The biggest thing I noticed switching analogue to digital broadcasting is that the audio quality was much worse.


It's definitely a problem here in the UK, at least for the free DVB-T channels -- typical bit rates seem to be 2500 to 3000. But what's particularly annoying is that some channels are broadcast twice -- with programs delayed by an hour on the '+1' channel.
Haha, yeah. Out of about 40 free channels, I think there might be 1 or 2 worth watching. It's mainly all repeats or shopping channels.


I've heard CD reissues of sixties music and wondered how I could have listened to that rubbish when I was younger. Playing the original single or LP soon restored my faith. Fabulous music, played by enthusiastic musicians recorded with simple microphone techniques in analogue studios. The force, vigour and soul of the original pressings were totally absent from the digital reissues. Modern recording methods are improving but the problem is finding the talent.
They always say that vinyl is "music you feel". I also wonder how much of this "life" is lost in the studio by the guy that "remasters" it or authors the digital version, you see it all the time how they fiddle with the sound.


I know that the government plans to switch off all analogue signals by 2008. It remains to be seen whether the increased bandwidth from the absence of analogue will be enough for HD signals.
Even if it was, it seems they are more bothered with quantity over quality. They could nuke a buch of these "Channel no. +1h" channels and increase the bitrate of the remaining channels.


the waste sort of annoys me. the amount of perfectly good equipment that ends up in landfill just because someone wanted a bigger/flatter/etc monitor/TV/etc.

there's places in the world that could benefit even from a 14 incher, but we just ditch the stuff and let the goodies within leach into the soil...
I've never thought of it like this before, (un?)fortunately for me, I hate throwing stuff out, so I usually sell it on or find another use for it.


for the record, i got a CRT when i got my new machine. reason? cheaper, better colour/luma reproduction, able to display more than 1 resolution without artefacts. it was second hand, too. only cost (AUD) $150 for a 19" trinitron that goes all the way up to 2048x1536, and has no problems whatever. plus the space isn't wasted - it makes a very good shelf, and provides a home for many DVDs and some of the cuter happy-meal toys.
Hell yeah, it's nice to know I'm not the only one (though us anime encoders who know quality are a dying breed :p). This particular CRT I have is a 21" Samsung 1100DF hooked up to my Matrox Parhelia via DVI-I > 5 BNC :D. It's friggin huge, and it's perfectly flat. Apart from the convergence in the corners, it beats LCD in most, if not all aspects in my opinion. Hey, it's even a shadow mask, meaning no gay damper wires that you get with aperture grill, ala Trinitron. Speaking of Trinitron, it's supposed to have a wider colour gamut too, check out the specs here: http://www.samsung.com/in/products/monitors/technicalinfo/smdyna_flat.htm

I was amazed when it arrived, a CRT monitor this large, this flat, and it's still a shadow mask? I will comment that the brightness is too high (I think I got a rogue CRT with bad settings?) but other than that I can't fault it and would recommend it. By the way, as I mentioned the brightness is too high, and I cannot turn it down any further in the OSD (it's at 0, but black does not match the unscanned parts). Should there be any internal adjustments that could be made? I know you usually get convergence rings inside, wondered if there was anything for brightness.

Actually, speaking of space we recently upgraded our systems where I work, and everyone got a nice "15 LCD monitor. I refused (we use in house Unix based software that runs at something like 720x400, so LCDs look bad) and bought my own "19 Syncmaster CRT in. It's pwns and makes an awesome shelf for putting stock notes and faxes on if your desk becomes full :D


This means that it can actually be cheaper to produce goods to an equal or slightly better standard than before. Or, dare I say it, produce inferior stuff that people think is better?
This, in my opinion, is PRECISELY the case with LCD. Cheaper production costs, more expensive to buy and people think it's better but it's not. I mean c'mon, consider the production costs of a 21" CRT against a 21" LCD. You have a huge ass load of glass in the CRT, along with the circuitry, and I guess manual calibration at the factory? As you mentioned there are the shipping and handling costs too. It took me and the delivery driver to shift my monitor, for a package the same size you could probably ship 15 LCD panels of an equal screensize.


Yup, lots of ppl I know just got a LCD for their PC coz they think its better (coz newer) than a CRT. But imo even LCDs for 500€ are worse than a quality CRT for... lets say 250€. Tho a 23" 1080p display like Doom9 has looks very seductive to me...
My thoughts exactly, though a large ass LCD/plasma or whatever would tempt me too, but I'd still prefer a CRT. I love my CRT to bits, I'd kill for something like this in 28" for a TV or something. It's a shame LCDs are the focus now, quality, big ass CRT's are becoming scarce now.

[mg262]

Looong post!

Most definately, the image quality of the DVB here (in the UK) is shocking. They use something like 3,000kbps MPEG-2 (CBR if I'm not mistaken...).Only BBC1 is CBR. The rest are VBR, or rather variable bit rate multiplex. Your video quality can drop because one of the other channels in the multiplex has an action scene...

Most annoying when you are DVB dumping because then you have to go and trim() parts to match the audio up and you end up with a lot of complete drop outs, as opposed to analogue where you can filter out noise if it's minor.Try recording as .ts (transport stream) and demultiplexing that before use... that gets round the synchronisation problem (or at least it does for me)

Getting back to the main discussion, I seem to remember reading an article saying that HDVI->unencrypted boxes were already being sold in Germany. I assume that I found the article from something on the news page or these forums... does anyone know what I'm talking about?

[arch_angel16]

Wait, you bought a parhelia?


*aahahahahahahaahaha!!!!*

*cough*


*ahahahahahaha!*

DVD *was* a substantial improvement over VHS in terms of quality. A well-encoded DVD looks absolutely stunning - you can't blame bad post-production and mastering on the format.

[Zero1]

Looong post!

Only BBC1 is CBR. The rest are VBR, or rather variable bit rate multiplex. Your video quality can drop because one of the other channels in the multiplex has an action scene...

Try recording as .ts (transport stream) and demultiplexing that before use... that gets round the synchronisation problem (or at least it does for me)

Getting back to the main discussion, I seem to remember reading an article saying that HDVI->unencrypted boxes were already being sold in Germany. I assume that I found the article from something on the news page or these forums... does anyone know what I'm talking about?
Hmm, I don't think it's possible for me to dump .ts' with my card (which is a Hauppauge Win TV Nova-T. I tried a while ago but a lot of the opensource and third party software didn't work.

Wait, you bought a parhelia?


*aahahahahahahaahaha!!!!*
And what is so funny about that :confused: ? I'm not a gamer and I have a decent CPU, so performance isn't much of an issue, but I do a lot of video editing, encoding and a bit of photoshop work, it's ideal for me what with the multi monitor business. A lot of people that know what they are talking about will tell you that a Parhelia is a quality card ;)

Also, it's not like I paid the crazy price for it either, I got one rather reasonably from ebay ;)

Having said that, I'm tempted to get one of those new Radeons that handle H.264 decoding, but I will look into that nearer the time.

Anyway, you're right. I can't blame the format if it has retards mastering it, but it's more of a case of re-encode stuff at a lower bitrate so you can fit more episodes on less DVDs.
A typical series released in America might have 4 or 5 episodes over a single layer DVD. An original Japanese release of one series in particular had 4 episodes over a dual layer DVD (the 448kbps stereo sounded good ;)) and even though it was an old cel based anime, it still looked great and cleans up well with some good old AVISynth.